Trial reportMedicine2016
Performance of the Existing Classification Criteria for Gout in Thai Patients Presenting With Acute Arthritis.
Trial report in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- [Diagnostics and treatment of gout : Short version of the German S3 guideline].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2025Review
- Value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of gout in patients presenting with acute arthritis.Skeletal radiology · 2017Article
- Performance of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism gout classification criteria in Thai patients.Rheumatology international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there are 5 existing classification criteria for gout: the Rome, New York, American Rheumatism Association (ARA), Mexico, and Netherlands criteria. This study was carried out to determine the performance of these classification criteria in Thai patients presenting with acute arthritis.All consecutive patients presenting with acute arthritis and being consulted at the Rheumatology Unit, Chiang Mai University Hospital from January 2013 to May 2015 were invited to join the study. Gout was defined by the presence of monosodium urate crystals in the synovial fluid or tissue examined by experienced rheumatologists. The 5 existing gout classification criteria were performed and evaluated in all of the patients, who were divided in subgroups of early disease (≤2 years), established disease (>2 years), and those without tophus.There were 136 gout and 97 nongout patients. Sensitivity and specificity across all criteria ranged from 75.7% to 97.1% and 68.0% to 84.5%, respectively. Overall, the Mexico criteria had the highest sensitivity (97.1%), and the ARA survey criteria the highest specificity (84.5%), whereas the Mexico criteria performed well in early disease with sensitivity and specificity of 97.1% and 81.7%, respectively. All 5 criteria showed high sensitivity (from 76.4% to 99.1%) but low specificity (from 30.8% to 65.4%) in established disease. In patients without tophus, the sensitivity and specificity ranged from 64.1% to 95.7% and 68.8% to 85.4%, respectively. The ARA survey criteria across all groups showed consistently high specificity for gout.The 5 existing classification criteria for gout had limited sensitivity and specificity in Thai patients presenting with acute arthritis. The ARA survey criteria are the most suitable for diagnosing gout in Thai people when crystal identification is not available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.